precedes on which _it_ follows according to a rule. For otherwise I should not say of the object that _it_ follows; because the mere succession of my apprehension, if _it_ is not determined by a rule in relation to something preceding, does not justify the assumption of a succession in the object. It is therefore always in reference to a rule, according to which _phenomena_ are determined in their sequence (i. e. as they happen) by the preceding state, that I make my subjective sequence (of apprehension) objective."[40] The fact is simply that Kant _must_ identify the two irreversibilities, because, as has been pointed out, he has only one set of terms to be related as irreversible, viz. the elements of the manifold, which have to be, from one point of view, elements of an object and, from another, representations or apprehensions of it. [36] The italics are mine. 'According to which' does not appear to indicate that the two orders referred to are different. [37] Cf. B. 242 fin., M. 147 fin. [38] The italics are mine [39] _Anstellen._ [40] The italics are mine. As soon, therefore, as the real nature of Kant's vindication of causality has been laid bare, it is difficult to describe it as an argument at all. He is anxious to show that in apprehending A B as a real or objective succession we presuppose that they are elements in a causal order of succession. Yet in support of his contention he points only to the quite different fact that where we apprehend a succession A B, we think of the _perception_ of A and the _perception_ of B as elements in a necessary but subjective succession. Before we attempt to consider the facts with which Kant is dealing, we must refer to a feature in Kant's account to which no allusion has been made. We should on the whole expect from the passage quoted that, in the case where we regard two perceptions A B as necessarily successive and therefore as constituting an objective succession, the necessity of succession consists in the fact that A is the cause of B. This, however, is apparently not Kant's view; on the contrary, he seems to hold that, in thinking of A B as an objective succession, we presuppose not that A causes B, but only that the state of affairs which precedes B, and which therefore includes A, contains a cause of B, the coexistence or identity of this cause with A rendering the particular succession A B necessary. "Thus [if I perceive that something happens] it arises that there comes to be an order among our representations in which the present (so far as it has taken place) points to some preceding state as a correlate, _though a still undetermined correlate_,[41] of this event which is given, and this correlate relates to the event by determining the event as its consequence, and connects the event with itself necessarily in the series of time."[42] [41] The italics are mine.